Advertisement

A decomposition algorithm for computing income taxes with pass-through entities and its application to the Chilean case

  • Javiera Barrera
  • Eduardo Moreno
  • Sebastián Varas K.
S.I.: CLAIO 2016

Abstract

Income tax systems with “pass-through” entities transfer a firm’s income to shareholders, which are taxed individually. In 2014, a Chilean tax reform introduced this type of entity and changed to an accrual basis that distributes incomes (but not losses) to shareholders. A crucial step for the Chilean taxation authority is to compute the final income of each individual given the complex network of corporations and companies, usually including cycles between them. In this paper, we show the mathematical conceptualization and the solution to the problem, proving that there is only one way to distribute income to taxpayers. Using the theory of absorbing Markov chains, we define a mathematical model for computing the taxable income of each taxpayer, and we propose a decomposition algorithm for this problem. This approach allows us to compute the solution accurately and to efficiently use computational resources. Finally, we present some characteristics of Chilean taxpayers’ network and the computational results of the algorithm using this network.

Keywords

Income taxes Markov processes Networks Algorithms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Studies, Servicios Impuestos Internos, particularly Carlos Recabarren, for introducing us to the problem and its relevance and for their valuable collaboration that led us to obtain these results.

References

  1. Anderson, E., Bai, Z., Bischof, C., Blackford, S., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., et al. (1999). LAPACK Users’ guide (Vol. 9). Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang-Jensen, J., & Gutin, G. Z. (2008). Digraphs: Theory, algorithms and applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, M., Waegenaere, A., & Wielhouwer, J. (2001). Optimal tax depreciation with uncertain future cash-flows. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(1), 197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00132-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björner, A., & Lovász, L. (1992). Chip-firing games on directed graphs. Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics, 1(4), 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham, P. F. (2012). Taxing businesses through the individual income tax. Tech. rep., Congressional Budget Office, Congress of the United States. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43750.
  6. Cerqueti, R., & Coppier, R. (2014). A game theoretical analysis of the impact of income inequality and ethnic diversity on fiscal corruption. Annals of Operations Research, 243, 71–87.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1567-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coppersmith, D., & Winograd, S. (1987). Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (pp. 1–6). ACM.Google Scholar
  8. Engel, A. (1975). The probabilistic abacus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 6(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goumagias, N., & Hristu-Varsakelis, D. (2013). Tax evasion by risk-averse firms in greece: A discrete markov-based optimization model. Optimization, 62(8), 1153–1167.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02331934.2012.707654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goumagias, N., Hristu-Varsakelis, D., & Saraidaris, A. (2012). A decision support model for tax revenue collection in greece. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 76–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartman, J., Liedtka, S., & Snyder, L. (2007). The impact of us tax depreciation law on asset location and ownership decisions. Computers and Operations Research, 34(12), 3560–3568.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.01.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kulp, Ab, & Hartman, Jb. (2011). Optimal tax depreciation with loss carry-forward and backward options. European Journal of Operational Research, 208(2), 161–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.06.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Le Gall, F. (2014). Powers of tensors and fast matrix multiplication. In Proceedings of the 39th international symposium on symbolic and algebraic computation (pp. 296–303). ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, Z. H., Deng, S., Lin, B., & Yang, J. (2010). Decision model and analysis for investment interest expense deduction and allocation. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 268–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Louveaux, F. (1982). Optimal scheduling of income tax prepayments under stochastic incomes. European Journal of Operational Research, 9(1), 26–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(82)90006-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merino, C. (2005). The chip-firing game. Discrete Mathematics, 302(1), 188–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, G., Weatherwax, M., Gardinier, T., Abe, N., Melville, P., Pendus, C., et al. (2012). Tax collections optimization for new york state. Interfaces, 42(1), 74–84.  https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.1110.0618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tarjan, R. (1972). Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing, 1(2), 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang, Z., Gao, W., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2016). Impact of taxation on international transfer pricing and offshoring decisions. Annals of Operations Research, 240(2), 683–707.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1489-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. World Bank (2015). Chile: Efectos distributivos de la reforma tributaria de 2014. Tech. rep., Ministerio de Hacienda, Gobierno de Chile. http://www.hacienda.cl/documento/descargar/id/15289.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and SciencesUniversidad Adolfo IbáñezSantiagoChile
  2. 2.CIRIC - INRIA ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations